Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

 

Crowlogic wrote:

 

 So I'll round it up to a nice even HALF A CENTUYRY!  HALF A CENTURY IS A HECK OF A LONG TIME and all the colored lines on all the frames of the PGF dosen't  change  this { }

 
 

So, you declare that it has been "too long" since the PGF was shot without any proof being found, for there to be a population of these creatures in N.A......but, FYI.....it had already been much longer than 50 years before the PGF was shotwithout any proof....or a 'body on a slab'.

 

It had been hundreds of years....(if not thousands).

 

If your logic is valid....(that "48-50 years is the time limit")....why then did you ever give Bigfoot's existence any plausibility?? Did you not know that 48-50 years was the time limit for not having proof?

 

If you weren't aware of that before....then when/where/how did you find out about this "48 year limit"? 

 

I would like to read-up on it, myself. :popcorn:

 

 

Pssst....I highlighted my questions, Crow....in case you are having trouble seeing them. :)

 

You just don't want to get it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Pssst my reasoning is backed up each and every single day there is no bigfoot hauled in from the wilds to be confirmed by real scientists.  My reasoning is backed by no matter how enticing the PGF may be nothing came from it.  My reasoning is backed up by every subscription grubbing hoaxing yahoo on youtube having pine cones tossed at them.  If the PGF were real other's of it's type would have been found especially since it's all over the place.  Now you seem to have a fetish about 48 years. So I'll round it up to a nice even HALF A CENTUYRY!  HALF A CENTURY IS A HECK OF A LONG TIME and all the colored lines on all the frames of the PGF dosen't  change  this { }

 

If you reasoned things based on the countless nutty poorly done videos on Youtube, then the same could be said about those who use altered images to claim boot heel costume malfunctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crow, you do realize that "bigfoot's time is up" is a fallacy, don't you?

 

Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years and millions of game cams and billions of searchers, if bigfoot existed we would have discovered it by now."

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then we have reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. In all its incarnations, this is the fallacy the skeptics commit the most often.

 

------------------------------

 

You can wish it wasn't so or you can deny it, but the longer you claim bigfoot's time is up the less cred you have. All you show us is fallacious rhetoric which may be your reasoning, but it is still only an appeal to ignorance.

Nope I just know this when I see it { }  Sure whatever but PM me when you got one on the slab and they're pulling DNA from it.  Outside of that you've got  this { }

 

 

Pssst my reasoning is backed up each and every single day there is no bigfoot hauled in from the wilds to be confirmed by real scientists.  My reasoning is backed by no matter how enticing the PGF may be nothing came from it.  My reasoning is backed up by every subscription grubbing hoaxing yahoo on youtube having pine cones tossed at them.  If the PGF were real other's of it's type would have been found especially since it's all over the place.  Now you seem to have a fetish about 48 years. So I'll round it up to a nice even HALF A CENTUYRY!  HALF A CENTURY IS A HECK OF A LONG TIME and all the colored lines on all the frames of the PGF dosen't  change  this

 

 

Half a century.  Hmmmmm.  The rare Red Fox would disagree with you:

 

https://youtu.be/7lgmuqSbMCw

 

Hmmmmm.  So would the Fanged Deer in Afghanistan first seen since 1948:

 

https://youtu.be/GxsmymNMlyw

 

 

I have no problem if you conclude there is no Bigfoot.  Your reasoning does not hold up to real world examples.  Therefore that basis Cannot Scientifically be correct if that basis is proven incorrect all the time in nature. 

 

Backdoc

 

Straw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Crow, you do realize that "bigfoot's time is up" is a fallacy, don't you?

 

Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

"After thousands of years and millions of game cams and billions of searchers, if bigfoot existed we would have discovered it by now."

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then we have reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. In all its incarnations, this is the fallacy the skeptics commit the most often.

 

------------------------------

 

You can wish it wasn't so or you can deny it, but the longer you claim bigfoot's time is up the less cred you have. All you show us is fallacious rhetoric which may be your reasoning, but it is still only an appeal to ignorance.

 

Nope I just know this when I see it { }  Sure whatever but PM me when you got one on the slab and they're pulling DNA from it.  Outside of that you've got  this { }

 

I never claimed bigfoot was real. I am a skeptic with an open mind. This is about your fallacious reasonings why bigfoot doesn't exist. It may be your personal view, but you tend to imply everyone else that doesn't share your view is kidding themselves. This is the very definition of a pseudo-skeptic or scoftic. If you are posting fallacious rhetoric merely to stir the pot and provoke the proponents then you are a troll. Which one are you going for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic wrote:

 

 

You just don't want to get it.

 

 

You can't answer my questions. :popcorn:

 

If you did....you'd have to admit that your "48 years...time's up" rant is nothing more than an arbitrary number which you pulled out of the air....or, some other place.

 

 

Giganto wrote:

 

 

I never claimed bigfoot was real. I am a skeptic with an open mind. This is about your fallacious reasonings why bigfoot doesn't exist. It may be your personal view, but you tend to imply everyone else that doesn't share your view is kidding themselves. This is the very definition of a pseudo-skeptic or scoftic. If you are posting fallacious rhetoric merely to stir the pot and provoke the proponents then you are a troll. Which one are you going for?

 

 

Nice post, Giganto. :thumbsup:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

^^^ Sweaty  I have answered your question  So while I generally detest  colored printing I am going to put my answer to you again in a format that maybe you can understand owing to your reliance on colored graphics.   

 

I decided that after being part of the bigfoot believers contingent since the release of the Patterson Gimlin FIlm 48 years ago that I could no longer maintain a belief in bigfoot.   My belief ceased because I concluded that after 48 years there should have been conclusive proof of it's existence.  My decision was swayed against bigfoot belief not in small part by the copious number of hoaxes, universally poor evidence and overall dysfunction within the bigfoot belief community.  Since I personally consider my interest in bigfoot as having started with the PGF and because it is the biggest/only reasonable bigfoot offering suggesting bigfoot is real I give a number of 48 years.  Next year it'l be 49 years etc etc.  I didn't  need to be spoon fed someone else's official bigfoot discovery timelines, I simply looked at bigfootism/bigfoot in the 48 years that have transpired since the film was released and concluded bigfoot isn't real.  I was able to make up my own mind!

 

Now then if you need to ask the question again the problem is with you and not me!

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow wrote:

 

 

 

 I didn't  need to be spoon fed someone else's official bigfoot discovery timelines, 

 

 

Neither do I, Crow baby.  :)

 

So, since you cannot answer my questions...and support your arbitrary timelines.....do me a big favor, and do not insult my intelligence.

 

Thank you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crow wrote:

 

 

 

 I didn't  need to be spoon fed someone else's official bigfoot discovery timelines, 

 

 

Neither do I, Crow baby.   :)

 

So, since you cannot answer my questions...and support your arbitrary timelines.....do me a big favor, and do not insult my intelligence.

 

Thank you. 

There is nothing arbitrary about it.  The PGF was released 48 years ago.  In the 48 years since it's released bigfoot has not been proven to exist therefore being the reasonable person I am I concluded that 48 years and no bigfoot was long enough to call it a day about belief.  I haven't made up the numbers and I haven't made up the fact that bigfoot has gone unsubstantiated.  Roger himself said it'd be proven with 10 years from the filming.  Shows what he knew I suppose.  Heck I gave it 5X that long and zippo.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me for 48 years shame on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Crow wrote:

 

 

 

 I didn't  need to be spoon fed someone else's official bigfoot discovery timelines, 

 

 

Neither do I, Crow baby.   :)

 

So, since you cannot answer my questions...and support your arbitrary timelines.....do me a big favor, and do not insult my intelligence.

 

Thank you. 

There is nothing arbitrary about it.  The PGF was released 48 years ago.  In the 48 years since it's released bigfoot has not been proven to exist therefore being the reasonable person I am I concluded that 48 years and no bigfoot was long enough to call it a day about belief.  I haven't made up the numbers and I haven't made up the fact that bigfoot has gone unsubstantiated.  Roger himself said it'd be proven with 10 years from the filming.  Shows what he knew I suppose.  Heck I gave it 5X that long and zippo.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me for 48 years shame on me.

 

 

Wow, you sound really special. Are you that impressed with yourself?

Edited by wiiawiwb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

You also concluded this...how'd that work out ? Your opinion is your opinion Crowlogic...for all I know...you still don't believe things can exist unless they have already been found.

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

 

 

Crow wrote:

 

 

 

 I didn't  need to be spoon fed someone else's official bigfoot discovery timelines, 

 

 

Neither do I, Crow baby.   :)

 

So, since you cannot answer my questions...and support your arbitrary timelines.....do me a big favor, and do not insult my intelligence.

 

Thank you. 

There is nothing arbitrary about it.  The PGF was released 48 years ago.  In the 48 years since it's released bigfoot has not been proven to exist therefore being the reasonable person I am I concluded that 48 years and no bigfoot was long enough to call it a day about belief.  I haven't made up the numbers and I haven't made up the fact that bigfoot has gone unsubstantiated.  Roger himself said it'd be proven with 10 years from the filming.  Shows what he knew I suppose.  Heck I gave it 5X that long and zippo.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me for 48 years shame on me.

 

 

Wow, you sound really special. Are you that impressed with yourself?

 

Yes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is nothing arbitrary about it.  The PGF was released 48 years ago.  In the 48 years since it's released bigfoot has not been proven to exist therefore being the reasonable person I am I concluded that 48 years and no bigfoot was long enough to call it a day about belief.  I haven't made up the numbers and I haven't made up the fact that bigfoot has gone unsubstantiated.  Roger himself said it'd be proven with 10 years from the filming.  Shows what he knew I suppose.  Heck I gave it 5X that long and zippo.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me for 48 years shame on me.

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Crowlogic,

 

You also concluded this...how'd that work out ? Your opinion is your opinion Crowlogic...for all I know...you still don't believe things can exist unless they have already been found.

 

Pat...

 

Crowlogic also concluded someone wore boots while wearing a Patty suit which left a heel imprint is a cast ... that did not work out so well either.

 

And then there was the conclusion he made that Gimlin lied about being able to see to get to the film site in pitch blackness, but that didn't work out so well either. Only if it weren't for those pesky Bluff Creek sunrise records! smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-013

wiiawiwb

Wow, you sound really special. Are you that impressed with yourself?

 

 

One can very well be impressed with their conclusions when they hold their research theories to such a low standard of accountability.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...